STOP

Early Journal Content on JSTOR, Free to Anyone in the World

This article is one of nearly 500,000 scholarly works digitized and made freely available to everyone in
the world by JSTOR.

Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other
writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the
mid-seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries.

We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this
resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non-commercial
purposes.

Read more about Early Journal Content at http://about.jstor.org/participate-jstor/individuals/early-
journal-content .

JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people
discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching
platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not-for-profit
organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please
contact support@jstor.org.

1895.] Botany. 1093

Length of diastema,

Greatest length or ramus,

Distance from top of coronoid process to bottom of jaw
Depth of jaw below sectorial,
Width of jaw below sectorial, . . . .
Distance from bottom of flange to incisive alveolar

border,

Depth of symphisis, ......

Length of symphisis superiorly, ....

Length of symphisis inferiorly

Length of symphisis medially, ....

54
173
56
33
16

Princeton, Nov. 1, 1895.

89
71
27
21
10
— J. B. Hatcher.

BOTANY. 1

The Vienna Propositions. — In the January number of the
Oesterreichische Boianische Zeitschrift Ascherson and Engler publish
six propositions embodying their views upon nomenclature, accompa-
nied by an explanation of the work of the international committee
appointed by the Genoa Congress. The propositions themselves have
been published quite extensively, but their explanation has not re-
ceived much notice in this country. The explanation is of some inter-
est to American botanists because it evidently furnished a part at least
of the inspiration and even of the language of the recent " protest " of
certain botanists against the Rochester Rules. It is also interesting as
showing that the committee appointed by the Genoa Congress has prac-
tically dwindled down to Ascherson and Engler.

Following is a translation of the " explanation " and of the six
propositions.

" Following the appearance of O. Kuntze's Revisio Generum Plan-
tarum in the spring of 1891, a deep movement made itself visible
among botanical systematists of all lands. In Germany it led to the
inquiry set on foot by the Berlin botanists, in the course of which the
four theses sent to over 700 colleagues were answered, for the most part
favorably, by more than half of the addressees ; by the Scandinavian

1 Edited by Prof. C. E. Bessey, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska.

1094 The American Naturalist. [December,

botanists investigation of the question was recommended to the meeting
of Naturalists at Copenhagen ; in North America the Botanical Club
of the American Association for the Advancement of Science at
Rochester adopted a resolution agreeing for the most part with the
Berlin explanation. This movement reached its culmination at the
International Congress held at Genoa in September, 1892, at which the
three first points of the Berlin explanation were agreed to almost with
unanimity, and for the settlement of the still controverted questions,
namely, the fourth Berlin thesis, as well as the doubt over the naming
of species, an international committee of thirty members was chosen
to prepare the decision of a future congress by a carefully elaborated
statement which should impartially consider all the material at hand.
"Since then the actual interest in the nomenclature controversy
seems to have cooled considerably. But the organization of the com-
mittee encountered unexpected difficulties. Only a bare majority ad-
vocated carrying forward the management of the undersigned. Of
the other members of the committee, to our regret, two of the three
British members, the representatives of Kew, Sir Joseph Hooker and
Mr. Baker, declined election in the committee. Two votes fell to Sir
Joseph Hooker as manager. One member, indeed, accepted the choice,
but thought that he must abstain from all discord over the manage-
ment. Some colleagues have left the questions addressed to them un-
answered. Discouraging as this result was, yet the undersigned held
themselves pledged to undertake the management, as otherwise nothing
would be accomplished. By this time it became necessary to produce
the requisite means for defraying expenses, which lately was made pos-
sible by the munificence of the Prussian Academy of Sciences. If,
therefore, 0. Kuntze in one of his latest publications accuses us of hid-
ing the questions out of sight in order to neglect them, that is one of
the cheap insinuations which we are accustomed to from this gentle-
man, and which, indeed, is not worthy a thorough refutation. This
seasoning of scientific polemic, for him indispensable it seems, and just
as insipid as undeserved aspersion of opponents, is employed in profuse
quantity in the controversial pamphlet appearing in the last twelve
months which O. Kuntze has published as the first part of the third
volume of the Revisio Generum Plantarum. In this pamphlet the
author has collected all the accessible observations upon the reform in
nomenclature undertaken by him and answered them in his manner
according to his use of foreign languages. The pamphlet contains also
a series of further propositions relating to the reform of nomenclature,
among others concerning the constitution of a future congress, and cul-

1895.] Botany. 1095

minates in the proposal of a compromise in that the author explains he
will agree to 1737 or even 1753 as the starting point of priority in gen-
era, provided the congress take up his other propositions en bloc.

" Of the other more important observations published in Europe we
mention also the memoir of Pfitzer, in which O. Kuntze's nomenclature
reform in the region of the orchids is critically examined ; O. Kuntze's
reply thereto, and a study by J. Briquet of the current nomenclature
questions.

" We would meet with little contradiction were we to state as the
common mark of these discussions and publications the opinion that
the endeavor of 0. K. (sic) to replace a considerable portion of
the generic names hitherto in use by others and to provide 30,000 spe-
cies with his mark of authorship, has found little response with the
great majority of thoughtful botanists, who hold the reform worse than
the alleged evil. The Kuntzean attempts found enthusiastic approval
•only in certain circles of American systematists who had already in-
scribed priority a I'outrance upon their banners. This tendency seems
to have been in the majority at the Botanical Congress held at Madison
in 1893, which, on account of the slender representation of Europe,
renounced internationality, since this gathering concluded its transac-
tions with a vote of thanks to O. Kuntze.

" But one would err very much if one thought that these gentlemen
adopt the Kuntzean nomenclature unexamined. There the specifically
American rule ' once a synonym always a synonym ' (which is ener-
getically opposed by O. Kuntze, but by Briquet interpolated into the
Parisian lois de la nomenclature of 1867) has opened up a new source
of rebaptisms, through which the number of needless renamings may
soon be increased by several more thousands. So we see that the
Kuntzean exertions, so far from bringing into the world the harmony
striven for by him, have opened the gates wide to dissension and con-
fusion.

" We believe that before we approach the special questions, two
closely interdependent fundamental errors must be met, which run
through the argumentation of Kuntze and his American friends. The
first is the notion that the principle of priority in questions of nomen-
clature, on account of its intrinsic justice, should be established for the
vindication of the spiritual property of the first discoverer or describer.
In our opinion this consideration can in no wise hold the first rank in
importance. Much more have we established the rule of priority only
for this purpose, in order to have an objective standard, since as a rule
it is much easier to determine which name was first published for a cer-

1096 The American Naturalist. [December,

tain form than which is the most convenient and suitable. The sense
of subjective justice is naturally different with each critic; let one con-
sider only the bitter discussion over the so called Kew Rule or ' object-
ive priority' and the closely connected questions of designations of
authority. The one thinks that he who first described a species, or
much more he who first named it, has unquestionably rendered the
greatest service in connection with it, the other puts the work of the
author who first placed a species in theproper genus so high thathis name
must stand under all circumstances. This cult of priority as a postu-
late of inherent justice takes on a truly grotesque form with the Amer-
ican theologist Greene ; he resembles to a hair the political legitimism
over which history has long since passed to the order of the day.

" O. Kuntze appears not to share this romantic conception, although
he seems to hold the not less strange illusion of his position over other
botanists. He will sacrifice a portion of his ' well earned rights,' but
only for the concession that the new congress lay aside its dictatorship.
He thinks that he possesses a source of power by which to bring the
whole botanical world, present and future, under his yoke.

" The second fundamental error has clearly arisen out of a mistaken
conception of the juristic form in which the late illustrious A. deCan-
dolle edited the rules of nomenclature in the form of a statute book.
Here also there can be no doubt that only an agreement for reasons of
expediency was submitted, which has been followed by the majority of
describing botanists by common consent. With what right can Kuntze
reproach the Kew botanists who have never recognized the laws with
non-observance of these rules? 2 But on no account can the resolutions
stand as a law for the enforcement of which the community of botanists
must lend their strong hand without refusal, as the state to civil laws.
Still less can the defects of this statute book, its silence concerning
questions which then were not on the order of the day, be misused for
advocates-tricks as, for example, O. Kuntze has done in the matter of
beginning priority of genera with 1735. The law says, as we know,
that in nomenclature one shall not go back of Linne. Standard works
of the master are not specially named. A. deCandolle in his remarks

2 In this place, as in many others in the article, Messrs. Ascherson and Engler
misrepresent Kuntze's attitude. Dr. Kuntze reproaches the Kew botanists be-
cause they persist in following their own personal inclinations and refuse to con-
sider themselves bound by any rules— not because having recognized the Paris
Code, they violate it. He compares their obstinacy with that of the English
people who persist in measuring by yards, feet and inches, after every one else
has adopted ail international and rational system. — E. P.

1895.] Botany. 1097

of 1883 makes the observation that the terms Phanerogamae and Cryp-
togamae are to date from 1735, the Linnaean genera from 1737, and
the species from 1753. He means this in the purely historical biblio-
graphical sense. In this state of affairs Kuntze now maintains that he
has acted in accordance with the laws because he has transferred the
species names of 1753 to the generic names of 1737-1752 (we will
leave undiscussed the shoving back to 1735 which was so fruitful in
new names), and accuses us of revolutionary procedure because we will
not allow priority of generic names to be put back of 1753. We can
here call upon the most competent testimony that can be adduced upon
this question, that of the late A. deCandolle, who prepared the laws,
directed the conference over them, and edited the conclusions for the
press. If this father of the Paris rules of 1867 has rejected the Kuntzean
interpretation, then the question is certainly put at rest. Not less does
the Kuntzean position that the rules which were there established con-
cerning the division of genera and like matters, be given retroactive
force in interpretation, so that now, for example, the species of Heliam-
themum, because they form the majority of the Linnaean genus Cistus
must bear that name, and the Miller-Gartnerian species of Cistus be re-
baptized, conflict, if not with the letter of the Paris resolves, at least
with the uninterrupted interpretation of them for nearly a quarter of a
century. Here also we hold it self evident that historical development
is to be respected — quieta non movere. But these rules of 1867 are to
hold when a new monographer reforms the present generic boundaries.
So all thoughtful systematists have held from 1867 to 1891, and so will
they do also in the future.

"With good foresight, then, did we fix upon the year 1753 as the-
starting point for genera also in the first Berlin thesis. The American,
resolution does the same, and both propositions are in full accord with the
present practice. As the Genoese congress assented to this decision by-
a large majority, it is scarcely intelligible how Kuntze sees in this
proposition a rash action into which one of the undersigned 'irritated'
the congress. Briquet lately opposes these conclusions in a pitiable-
way in order to argue for 1737. He calls to his aid the Kuntzean
argument that 1753 will necessitate the rebaptism of about 6000 spe-
cies, while by beginning with 1737 a much smaller number would be-
required. Naturally alterations of the Kuntzean nomenclature are
meant. But a comparison can only be made with the nomenclature
current before the appearance of the Revisio, and thus it appears that
1737 makes a greater number of alterations necessary than standing
upon the starting point hitherto commonly adopted, at least de facto.,
75

1098 The American Naturalist. [December,

" Already two years ago we called attention to the fact that the es-
tablishment of 1753 did not suffice to restrain a large number of dis-
agreeable rebaptisms of the best known and most numerous in species
of genera. We then as a fourth thesis made a list of 80 (81) genera,
the current names of which we wished to retain in spite of priority.
This thesis was not adopted at Genoa. It had previously found oppo-
sition among the Vienna botanists, and had united against itself the
greater number of opponents in the Berlin iuquiry. We believe that
this opposition is directed against the arbitrary selection ; while the
purpose, the protection of current names against alterations in majorem
gloriam of an abstract principle, as inconvenient as unnecessary, has
met with the approval of many of the dissenters. Who can wish sin-
cerely that the abstruse word-buildings of an Adanson, the doctrinaire
creations of a Neckar (who strove to obscure the conception of a genus
as it had stood well-defined since Tournefort and Rivinus) and the
hasty improvisations of a Rafinesque should replace names some of them
current for more than one hundred years? We believe that in this
case the narrowing of the rule of priority for genera by introducing a
year limitation will lead to our goal. One can see an inconsistency here,
namely, that we do not propose this year limitation for specific names
also. Yet we believe that here also, considerations of convenience
must take precedence of abstract symmetry. For half a century men
have labored zealously to determine the meaning of Linnaean species
and of the species of the older authors by a careful study of their writ-
ings and of their collections. These studies were only made possible
by the most exact knowledge of the forms concerned ; which one cer-
tainly cannot assert of the efforts of Kuntze and his imitators which
are for the most part based only on bibliographic researches. The
result of all these labors which has already met with abundant general
acceptation, would be lost, and long vanquished errors would resume
sway if we were to introduce the year limitation (naturally with re-
troactive force) for species also. The inconvenience of such a rectifi-
cation of priority affects only as a rule a single name, sometimes two,
more seldom a larger number. In the case of genera a similar ' cor-
rection,' which in no way concerns the scientific knowledge of the types
in question, may often lead to the rebaptism of two hundred names.

" Moreover, theoretical reasons can be adduced why genera should
not receive precisely the same treatment in nomenclature as species.
Only a few would defend the absolute application of the principle of
priority to the naming of families, orders and classes. Now, since in
these cases, the considerations for priority fail, it is an entirely reason-

1895.] Botany. 1099

able distinction to hold that while with genera priority shall rule,
nevertheless where reason would become unreason and benefit vexa-
tion it be restrained by a year limitation, and yet in the case of species
rule unrestrained.

" A different treatment of priority for genera recommends itself also
with respect to the debated starting point of the same. We have
already mentioned the important considerations of convenience which
speak for 1753 ; nevertheless, there are numerous adherents of 1737;
there have been and will be some for 1735, 1094, 1690, and, perhaps,
for still other dates. Each of these starting points would naturally
require a special generic nomenclature.

" It is also to be noticed that the conception of the genus is much
less defined and, therefore, more inconstant than that of the species.
What alterations have the ideas of genera in the Cryptogams, exclud-
ing the ferns, in the Gramineee, Orohidacece, Umbelliferce, Composites,
Cruciferce, etc., undergone since Linne. For these groups, therefore,
our proposition comes to the same result as the proposals which would
have the priority of groups begin with this and that monograph. Also
the disagreeable double-namings in the Proteacece, in which by Kuntze's
own statement Knight and Salisbury, the authors he has raised upon
his shield, do not seem at all free from the suspicion of plagiarism,
would be put out of the world.

" Moreover, by the adoption of a period of limitation, the addition to
the second Berlin thesis resolved upon at Genoa at Prantl's suggestion
will become superfluous. This, as it must be confessed, somewhat im-
provised proposal directed its point against Adanson ; but it affected as
well Haller, Scopoli (in part), and many other authors whose names are
well known.

" Besides, even 0. Kuntze has nothing to oppose to a limitation prin-
ciple, provided only his restorations are excepted from it!

" It is self evident that the endeavor to alter the current nomencla-
ture of genera as little as possible, which has moved us to propose a
period of limitation, must not fall into opposition with itself. Such an
opposition would occur if a name for a long time in common use
should be rejected by reason of the rule, since, perhaps, after it had
remained unobserved for a long time it might be restored once more.
It is necessary, therefore, to fix a limitation for this and analogous
cases.

" By fixing both periods at fifty years, the greatest number of the
names applied in DeCandolle's Prodromus will be allowed to stand,
and most of the 6000 rebaptisms calculated by O. Kuntze as required
by 1753 will fail.

1100 The American Naturalist. iDecembeiv

" We summarize the results of the foregoing discussion in the follow-
ing rules :

" 1. The rule that a name once applied but later becoming invalid
must not be used again is to be recommended for observance in the
future ; but retroactive force is to be denied to this rule (once a syno-
nym always a synonym) and alterations of names based upon it are to
be rejected.

" 2. On the transfer of a species out of the original genus into another
genus, the original specific name is to be retained.

" 3. The year 1753 is to be retained as the starting point of priority
for both species and genera.

" 4. In the nomenclature of species the principle of priority is im-
perative ; only a more certain name must not be replaced by a doubt-
ful one.

" 5. In the nomenclature of genera a name which has remained un-
noticed for at least fifty years, cannot later be established in the place
of one which has become current.

" 6. This rule allows an exception where the name in question, since
its restoration, has remained in use at least fifty years.

" These rules as well as all other proposals proceeding from the
committee after they have been passed upon by the committee, require
the approval of a future congress.

" It is much to be desired that botanical nomenclature be placed in
the closest possible accord with the system of nomenclature now under
deliberation by the zoologists.

" P. Ascherson,
"A. Engler."

" Vienna, September 21, 1894."

( To be continued.')

VEGETABLE PHYSIOLOGY. 1

Macfarlane on Paraheliotropism. — As the result of a series of
interesting experiments, described in Botanisches Centralblatt. Bd. 61,
1895, under the title of" The Sensitive Movements of some Flowering
Plants under Colored Screens," Dr. J. M. Macfarlane, of the Univer-

1 This department is edited by Erwin F. Smith, Department of Agriculture,
Washington, D. 0.